Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
For agenda item 2, we will hear further evidence on the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill. I welcome back Margo MacDonald MSP, who is the member in charge of the bill. I also welcome our witnesses, who are: Ruth Morgan Thomas, who is the project manager of SCOT-PEP—the Scottish prostitutes education project—and George Lewis, who is its co-chair. I remind members that today is our second evidence-taking session on the bill. On 25 May, we will hear further evidence from the City of Edinburgh Council and Aberdeen City Council. I invite Ruth Morgan Thomas to make some introductory remarks.
Ruth Morgan Thomas (SCOT-PEP):
I thank the committee for inviting us to give evidence again. Since we last gave evidence, the situation in Edinburgh has changed—I think that it has become critical.
For the past 15 years, I have been involved in SCOT-PEP and in developing services for sex workers within a human and civil rights framework. Our focus is on health promotion and the protection and empowerment of sex workers.
There are diverse feminist and ideological perspectives and political stances on sex work, but regardless of all the opinions, what remains undeniable is the vulnerability of sex workers in today's society and their social exclusion through discrimination, stigmatisation and inequality, given their lack of access to services, support and employment rights. The most vulnerable are undoubtedly those who are involved in street prostitution.
No Government or law enforcement strategy has managed to eradicate prostitution or the sex industry. The criminalisation of the selling of sex in Iraq resulted in sex workers being publicly executed, but individuals still sold sex there. The criminalisation of buying sex in Sweden has driven the sex industry underground and has made sex workers more vulnerable. Legalised brothels in Nevada in the USA have not eradicated street prostitution in that state.
The selling and buying of sex are not illegal in Scotland, but strategies that enable sex workers to work collectively and therefore more safely are illegal. That illegality excludes sex workers from the protection that is offered to other workers through employment and health and safety legislation.
Zero tolerance of the sex industry simply forces prostitution underground and disperses sex workers. It has no significant impact on the level of prostitution, but it has a significant impact on the health, safety and well-being of sex workers. It opens up opportunities for clients and organised crime to exploit and abuse sex workers. In every city that has implemented zero tolerance or had sporadic crackdowns on street prostitution, sex workers have reported that the level of attacks on them increased significantly while their ability to access support and services decreased.
When domestic abuse became widely recognised, we did not adopt a zero tolerance policy towards the institution of marriage or relationships. We sought to combat abuse and violence in that institution and to reduce individuals' vulnerability to such abuse by creating an environment in which our society would not tolerate abuse and violence and by providing support services that are appropriate to the self-identified needs and aspirations of those who are affected by vulnerability to abuse.
It is necessary to understand and address the contextual issues, the complexities of the concepts of vulnerability and abuse and the constraints on the real choices that sex workers and drug users can make in today's society. No moral or ideological perspectives should be allowed to increase further the vulnerability and social exclusion of sex workers.
The sex-worker community is not a single entity and street-based sex workers are not a homogeneous group. They come from diverse backgrounds and have differing interests and ideas, as well as different life experiences and current life circumstances. There are diverse reasons for entering and remaining in prostitution that cover a continuum that runs from coercion to choice within the constraints of the current economic and employment context of our society. In a social inclusion framework, one must respect the diversity of views that are expressed by sex workers, including those who assert their right to self-determine and who choose to engage in sex work, as well as those who wish to leave the sex industry.
A legislative framework is required to enable us to work to minimise the harmful effects, instead of our simply ignoring or condemning sex workers, their clients or the sex industry. That framework should tackle the real and tragic harm that street-based sex workers face daily. Such legislation should enable each area to implement—on a what-works, evidenced basis—policies and strategies that respond to local conditions in order to reduce sex workers' vulnerability, increase their access to support and services and combat involuntary sex work.
It is estimated that between 800 and 1,000 women work in the sex industry in Edinburgh each year and that between 10 per cent and 15 per cent engage in street prostitution. In 2003, SCOT-PEP had contact with 126 street-based sex workers. In the first nine months of the current financial year, contact was made with 117 street-based sex workers, of whom 44 were new to street prostitution.
The situation and vulnerability of street-based sex workers in Edinburgh have deteriorated further since last we gave evidence. We will highlight particular concerns that we believe relate directly to the loss of the designated area, in which women worked collectively to minimise criminality such as that which is currently encroaching on street prostitution in Leith.
Since we last gave evidence, a significant increase in violence has taken place. That is outlined in the supplementary written evidence that we submitted earlier this month. The ugly mug briefing paper shows a 1,000 per cent increase in attacks. That represents a 2,000 per cent increase in risk for each woman since we lost our designated area two years ago. SCOT-PEP was one of the first sex-work projects in the UK to promote an ugly mug scheme, in the early 1990s. The scheme was set up as an early warning system against potentially violent clients; it enabled sex workers to try to prevent further attacks from the same individuals.
SCOT-PEP's policy has always been to share information with the police and to encourage and support sex workers to report crimes against them. That policy has not changed in the 15 years during which we have operated. However, co-operation and trust between the women and the police have continued to deteriorate, as women are now regularly cautioned and charged by the police and regard the police as their persecutors, rather than their protectors.
Drug dependency among local street-based sex workers has increased from under 50 per cent to more than 95 per cent and the vast majority of users now inject. That has happened since the loss of the zone. That dramatic increase in drug dependency among street-based sex workers occurred well after the re-emergence of heroin use was being reported in Edinburgh, so I do not think that the two can necessarily be linked. Drug dealers have encroached—that problem had been minimised when the designated area was in operation. During the past year, drug pimping has emerged, by which I mean the coercion of women into street prostitution because of their drug dependency. Again, that was not happening when we had a designated area.
We have also witnessed the introduction of protection racketeers and the re-emergence of pimping in Edinburgh's street prostitution scene, which—again—had been minimised during the operation of the designated area. During the past two years, we have received a significant number of reports of under-16s being involved in street prostitution, whereas during the last two years in which the zone operated, no under-16s were involved in street prostitution in the city.
Some people assert that the operation of a zone attracts criminality and minors to the area, but that is not substantiated by Edinburgh's 15 years of experience of operating a designated area. Such criminality and child sexual abuse through prostitution has re-emerged only since we lost the designated area. The continuing dispersal of street prostitution over a significant part of north Leith has removed the police's ability to manage and control the situation effectively, despite the on-going high levels of police activity in the area. Women continue not to report the presence of undesirables or crimes against them, as the hostile relationships with the police continue. We have been unable to re-establish the relationship of confidence and trust that once existed.
The on-going dispersal and mobility of street-based workers has had a significant impact on women's ability to access services and support, and on SCOT-PEP's ability to provide the level and quality of support that we used to offer and to identify women when they enter street prostitution, when they are at their most vulnerable. The forthcoming introduction of antisocial behaviour orders against street-based sex workers in Edinburgh could further restrict street-based sex workers' access to the harm reduction and new futures services and support that the SCOT-PEP mobile unit provides. The use of antisocial behaviour orders might further disperse street prostitution across Leith and the rest of the city.
The existence of a zone in which soliciting and loitering were decriminalised would enable street-based sex workers to work collectively and to protect one another, and it would remove the need for the partners, minders and protection racketeers to be present. A zone would reintroduce the community barriers to the involvement of minors in street prostitution, drug dealing, pimping and other criminality. It would rebuild the trust and confidence that sex workers require if they are to report crimes against them and it would enable the police to re-establish control and tackle criminality. It would prevent children from being introduced into street prostitution. Finally, it would create real opportunities to target harm reduction and new futures services and support effectively.
The designation of a geographic area as a zone within which soliciting and loitering were decriminalised would not present a total solution to the problems around the social phenomenon of prostitution, but it would create opportunities to engage with and protect street-based sex workers. Such opportunities cannot easily be found when street prostitution is dispersed and driven underground. The situation of street-based sex workers in Edinburgh is unacceptable in today's society.
The creation of a zone does not in itself represent a condoning of prostitution: rather, it represents acceptance—for better or worse—that prostitution is a part of our world today, and it represents a choice to work to minimise harmful effects on sex workers and the local community.
During the period of deterioration in the street-prostitution environment in Edinburgh, SCOT-PEP's services to street-based sex workers have had to be significantly reduced because of the loss over the past two years of new futures project funding, of funding for our work with young people who are involved in prostitution, and of funding for the volunteer development project.
We previously provided a service to street-based sex workers five nights a week. In 2002, that was reduced to four nights, in 2003 it was reduced to three nights and, as of 1 March, it has been reduced to two nights. We previously provided five days of office-based support to indoor and street-based sex workers, which was reduced to four days in 2002. As of 1 March this year, that has had to be reduced to two days. Previously, we provided four days provision of our establishment outreach service, which is for indoor sex workers. In 2002 we had to reduce that to three days. As of 1 March, it has been reduced to two days.
That is a stark picture for women as vulnerable as are the women in our city today. Each reduction in service provision has led to an outcry from street-based and indoor sex workers, and in a reduction in the level of support that SCOT-PEP is able to provide. With such limited resources, work has been reduced to an Elastoplast service for Edinburgh's sex workers, consisting of drug and sexual harm reduction and crisis intervention, which allows minimal personal development work to be undertaken with indoor or street-based sex workers to enable them to explore their options and routes out of prostitution.
It remains SCOT-PEP's belief that to tackle the social phenomenon of prostitution and to protect the health and safety of all sex workers, it is essential that three strands be pursued to combat the nuisance. They relate to the exploitation, the violence and criminality and the abuse that can be associated with the sex industry. The first strand is the prevention of involuntary sex work, rather than of prostitution itself. To remove involuntary sex work, it is essential that poverty, drug use, homelessness and childhood abuse and neglect be tackled. While such phenomena remain within our society, individuals will become involved in prostitution either to address their needs or as a result of coercion.
In addition, holistic sex education that focuses on how young people perceive their bodies is essential in order to raise awareness and to prevent all forms of sexual exploitation that occur within and outwith the sex industry. However, such education programmes should recognise that children of sex workers will take part in those programmes. Such education should not seek to stigmatise further or to marginalise sex workers or their families. Instead, it should address the real and tragic harm and danger that is associated with sexual exploitation through prostitution, unwanted sexual relations and unsafe sexual health behaviours.
The second strand is harm reduction. Creating an environment in which sex workers can be empowered to work together, and within which self-worth, dignity and respect are nurtured, has a significant impact on violence against, and exploitation of, sex workers. The provision of support and services that reduce the vulnerability and marginalisation of sex workers, while they promote respect for self and others within a non-judgmental environment, has been shown in Edinburgh to reduce the violence, exploitation and exclusion that sex workers experience. That was achieved through a multi-agency approach, with partnership working being a fundamental component of the person-centred approach that was taken in Edinburgh.
The designated area was an essential component of the successful harm-reduction strategy that operated in Edinburgh, which succeeded in preventing HIV infections within the sex industry in our city at a time when Edinburgh was seen as being the AIDS capital of Europe, which is a fact that too often we forget. In Edinburgh it is now difficult to see how we can ensure that the harm that has come to those who are involved in the sex industry since the loss of the zone can be reduced without a clear legal framework that enables the city to re-establish a designated area.
The third strand is that we should provide support for people to move on from the sex industry. SCOT-PEP has always been committed to supporting those who wish to move on from the sex industry, and to the need to create multiple layers of opportunities and support that enable that. However, we recognise that not all sex workers wish, or are able, to move on immediately. The SCOT-PEP new futures project was accessed by 10 per cent of the sex workers who were in contact with the organisation each year. It provided support to 96 individuals, only 19 of whom remain in contact with SCOT-PEP for support in respect of on-going involvement in the sex industry today.
We believe that sex workers must be consulted on the development, implementation and evaluation of any and all strategies that are considered for dealing with the social phenomenon of prostitution. Sex workers should not be perceived as criminals, targets for public health interventions or victims to be assisted, but as citizens with the right to determine their own needs and aspirations.
Given that no Government or law-enforcement strategy has managed to eradicate prostitution, let us not abandon those who work in the sex industry today—and those who will work in it next week, next year and into the next decade—as the women of Edinburgh were abandoned in December 2001. We urge the committee to support Margo MacDonald's bill, to address the urgent needs of street-based sex workers in Edinburgh, and to send a message to society that we care about sex workers and about reducing their vulnerability.
The committee should note the motion that was moved by the International Union of Sex Workers and the London entertainment branch of the GMB and that was passed at last year's Trades Union Congress women's conference. The motion reads:
"The criminalization of many aspects of sex work is responsible for the lack of employment rights,"
casualisation,
"widespread violence, exploitation and abuse in the global and, for some, profitable sex industry. Legislation does not provide adequate protection for sex workers. Conference recognises that sex workers are a vulnerable group, who need the voice that only the trade union movement can provide. Conference believes that workers in the industry should have:
1. Full legal protection from harassment, violence, threats, intimidation and theft
2. The consideration of the decriminalization of prostitution with a view to full and proper regulation in the interests of the workforce and the communities in which the industry operates
3. The right to the full range of employment, health and safety and contractual rights
4. The right to pursue alternative employment with support and assistance provided
5. The right to full, voluntary access to all NHS services, including … medical advice."
Thank you for that full presentation. In asking this question, I am not disputing any of the information that you have given on what happened before or after the demise of the non-harassment zone. In considering the bill, we have to think about whether legislation is needed and whether it would be practical. There was an effective non-harassment zone in Edinburgh, and it did not fall apart because of the legal framework but because of changes in the area in which it was operating. If it were possible to find another suitable area, would it be possible to return to that situation without legislation?
I believe that the demise of the Edinburgh area was due partly to the lack of a legal framework. An area was identified and the women were relocated, but the legal framework did not provide a true chance to see whether that would work. Lothian and Borders police had relocated the street prostitution area—for soliciting and loitering only—to a new area, and they were faced with a legal challenge from local businesses and residents. Lothian and Borders police and the council sought an opinion from lawyers; that opinion was that if a judicial review was sought on their decision to aid and abet in the illegal activities that would have been happening in the area, Lothian and Borders police would have lost because of the current legal framework.
The problem in Edinburgh is that we do not have a red-light area; there is no longer any such defined area. Wherever we try to locate such an area, local businesses and residents go back to the law and accuse the council or the police of aiding and abetting in a currently illegal activity. In part, there was a legal reason why the zone failed; it was not just because of regeneration.
Thank you for that explanation. I am not going to get into legal arguments about whether or not the zone would have been successful—I think that that is our position as a committee. However, the other side of the coin is that, in order to designate an area under Margo MacDonald's proposals, you would have to go through a fairly extensive process. Given what has happened in Edinburgh in relation to the unofficial non-harassment areas, is there any realistic prospect of any local authority anywhere in Scotland successfully implementing a designated zone as proposed in Margo's bill?
I believe that there is. I am not saying that it would be easy or that people would welcome a zone in their back yards, but if there was a real commitment from both national and local politicians, policy makers and agencies, I think that it would be possible. In the short period that the Salamander Street area operated—three and a half months in total—local businesses certainly shifted from their perspective of alarm when they first heard that the zone was going to be in their area to a perspective from which one businesswoman told the previous committee that she had found clear benefits for her business, in terms of a reduction in vandalism, graffiti and break-ins, in the small industrial complex.
It is a question of how we sell the idea to people. If Margo MacDonald's bill is quite clear in saying that a moral objection to prostitution is not sufficient reason for there being no such zones, I believe that there are solutions to the problems that do occur in and around areas where street prostitution occurs. We all need to be committed to finding such solutions.
I would like to ask a couple of questions that come at the whole issue from the two major standpoints that have emerged so far. The first is on the practicalities of the here and now. Your evidence, and the evidence that we have heard before, is that there has been a significant increase in attacks, in drug abuse and in under-age prostitution. Are you confident that that evidence is reliable? How is such evidence gathered?
I am very confident in the evidence's reliability because it comes from sex workers themselves. The reports of the attacks are collected during our night-time service provision. I talked a little bit about the ugly mug scheme that we have been running for nearly 15 years. That scheme was about sex workers protecting themselves at a time when they felt that nobody else would protect them. I have to say that I trust the workers when they tell me something; I have no reason to doubt them. In a significant number of cases, if you saw the women who were reporting the attacks, you would have no doubt that they had experienced genuine abuse and violence from clients, and sometimes from local residents. I suppose that it depends on whether or not you are prepared to accept what a sex worker says. In part, that comes down to attitudes towards sex workers and whether they can be trusted. I certainly believe that we should believe them when they report abuse.
On drug dependency, the evidence from our joint work with the harm-reduction team, which is part of Lothian Primary Care NHS Trust, provides a second corroboration of the evidence that we have given about the phenomenal increase in drug dependency and injecting. Chaotic lifestyles are becoming entrenched for these women. That evidence is very clear.
The reliability of evidence on under-age prostitution is more difficult to establish, because our organisation has had no contact with anybody under 16. The reports that we have received about minors being involved in street prostitution have come from Lothian and Borders police, who inform us and ask us to look out for particularly young people. We have had evidence from the community drug-problem service that is operated by NHS Lothian, which has had contact with a 14-year-old. We also had one report that came from the media, from a journalist who had run an article on a young person. All the reports that we have of under-age people being involved in street prostitution come from external agencies. I have to say, however, that I do not disbelieve them.
Having found out where those young people were supposed to be working, we put in considerable time and effort to try to establish contact with them, but we failed to do so. It is particularly difficult to establish that contact because of dispersal; we have to go around an enormous area that has small, dark side streets. When we do our street outreach work, it takes us about an hour to drive around the area, so there are minimal chances that we will meet the young people. That is another reason why a tolerance zone, which enables women to congregate and to work collectively, is a tool for preventing abuse through prostitution of young people.
Although we have faith in our recording system, it would not surprise us if the actual figures were much higher than the figures that we have recorded. As Ruth Morgan Thomas said, that is due to the dispersal of women, but it is also due to the breakdown in contact both between us and the women and between the police and the women. As Ruth mentioned, the trust that the women had in the police has broken down. We have no evidence of this, but there is every likelihood that there are many other attacks that we do not hear about. The figures are trustworthy, but the true figures might be much higher.
I wanted to hear your opinion for the record because, when I asked the minister and the head of the expert group about the figures, neither was able to challenge them. It appears that you, the City of Edinburgh Council and Lothian and Borders police are all clear that the increase in the number of attacks has a correlation with the removal of the zone. That is important evidence for us, from a practical point of view.
From a wider, ideological point of view, how do you deal with the suggestion that the bill would somehow send out the wrong message about prostitution, which many regard as a form of violence against women? As a socialist, I would like prostitution and the need for women to sell their bodies to be eradicated, as I am sure you would. Is the bill an advantage or a disadvantage in promoting the eradication of prostitution? Do you think that those who argue that it is a disadvantage are looking for perfection long before we can deliver it?
In an ideal society, I would certainly want prostitution to be eradicated—I do not think that anyone could sit here and say that they would want prostitution to exist in an ideal society. We live in a capitalist society and in a society that exploits workers. In our current economic environment, one of the ways in which women, globally, support themselves and their families is by selling sex. I struggle with the issue. Prostitution is something that I wish women did not have to do, but we need a reality check. Unless we address and eradicate from our society the issues that we outline in our evidence, such as poverty and drug use, prostitution will exist as a means for women, men and people of transgender to earn a living. For many people, prostitution is work—people refer to themselves as "working girls" or "working men". They consider it to be work, yet we offer them no protection under employment rights.
We should send out clear messages about gender equality. I am a committed feminist and I believe in gender equality, but I also believe that it is my right as a woman to choose how I make my living and what I do with my body. Years ago, we had men telling us what we, as women, should do with our bodies. Women said, "It's my body, it's my business." Now we have feminists telling us what we should or should not do with our bodies. It is our right as women to self-determine and to choose the best path that we have in our current environment. However, I regret that our current environment is such that prostitution is thriving, because of poverty, drug use, homelessness and child abuse.
It is fascinating to hear your arguments. My eyes have been opened to many issues through considering the bill. In the previous evidence-taking session, much reference was made to the model that was adopted in Sweden. The first thing that struck me was that the Swedish approach was part of a bigger package, called "Leave women alone"—the legislation did not even refer to prostitution in its title. We discussed whether the title of the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill was a good one at the previous evidence-taking session and I was struck by the title of the Swedish Government bill, which refers to violence against women. The Swedish Government believes:
"By prohibiting the purchase of sexual services, prostitution and its damaging effects can be counteracted more effectively than hitherto."
It believes not only that
"Prostitution is not a desirable social phenomenon"
but that it is
"an obstacle to the ongoing development towards equality between women and men."
I cannot disagree with that, so I am not convinced by your arguments about tolerance zones and workers' rights, which do not tie in with that ideology. Will you comment on that?
There is real violence and harm in prostitution as it currently operates in the United Kingdom legal framework as well as in the legal frameworks of many other countries. I do not believe that prostitution, in and of itself, is violence against women.
Women have faced incredible prejudice and discrimination through speaking out to say, "In today's society, this is what I choose to do." It is difficult for women to hear people say, "What you say doesn't matter and it doesn't count. You don't have the right to decide what you do with your body or how you make your living." Unless we criminalise the selling of sex, that is a problematic stance to take.
We need to focus on the fact that abuse is happening. We must look at the bigger picture. The social justice agenda of eradicating poverty and all the other issues of which I spoke will impact on reducing involvement in prostitution. We need to promote respect for sex workers and say to people in our society, "You do not have the right to rape that woman simply because she sells sex. She is a worthy human being and she deserves respect as she is today." Violence is committed against sex workers who are not prepared to conform to a moral perspective of prostitution. I have experienced that on a personal level.
It is important that we focus the limited resources that we have. Nobody likes putting money into services for sex workers—that is a difficulty that we have all faced. With such limited resources, we have to ask what we can achieve realistically in our society today. I have no problem saying that prostitution is harmful and that it involves genuine dangers that we need to tackle. We should aim for a society that is fair and equitable and that allows people to self-determine.
That brings me on to another point about self-determination. In considering this matter in some detail, I came across a 2003 report, "10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution", by Janice G Raymond. The author makes some powerful arguments, especially about the right to choose. She says:
"There is no doubt that a small number of women say they choose to be in prostitution, especially in public contexts orchestrated by the sex industry. In the same way, some people choose to take dangerous drugs such as heroin. However, even when some people choose to take dangerous drugs, we still recognize that this kind of drug use is harmful to them, and most people do not seek to legalize heroin. In this situation, it is harm to the person, not the consent of the person that is the governing standard."
If we go down the road of allowing the right to choose and then those who have been allowed to choose demand the right to be protected within the law, are we not undermining the basis on which a legal establishment can be brought about?
I do not believe that we would be. It interests me that people always claim that what sex workers say is orchestrated by the sex industry or by businessmen. What I say certainly is not. I have been quite clear about the fact that, when I was a sex worker, I made a decision to enter the sex industry to solve problems arising from my financial situation. I do not believe that I have been orchestrated by a brothel owner, pimp or anyone else involved in the sex industry to assert my right.
I was not breaking the law. Selling sex is not illegal. The fact that people who are not breaking the law are paying the penalties that sex workers are paying is bizarre. If you made the quantum leap that is required and considered the issue as an employment or labour issue, you would see clearly that sex workers should have protection in employment law. That, in itself, will reduce the abuse and the harm that occurs in prostitution, which you have talked about.
We are talking about exploitation and power relationships in society. Marianne Eriksson, of the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, produced a report—
I have read it.
She said:
"EU Member States have capitulated and, instead of fighting against such exploitation of human beings, have accepted the prevailing situation and, through legalisation and regulation of prostitution, have helped to make what was previously a criminal activity part of the legal economic sector. The Member State then becomes part of the sex industry, yet another profiteer on the market."
She also said:
"The only thing achieved by legalisation and regulation is that, in society at large, acceptance of sexual exploitation has increased."
Surely we should not be doing anything that allows sexual exploitation to be increased. Any recognition of a zone in which prostitution is tolerated allows that exploitation to become widely accepted in society.
The issue is complex. You refer constantly to legalisation. Neither I, personally, nor SCOT-PEP supports the legalisation of the sex industry. That is different from decriminalising prostitution in a way that will give that vulnerable group of women access to support and services and reduce their vulnerability. We should seriously consider that.
We are being asked to pass a bill that would regulate prostitution. I do not think that the two issues can be separated. The only reason why we are discussing the issue is that we are considering a bill relating to prostitution.
The issue of regulation is about decriminalising two offences, the existence of which phenomenally increases the vulnerability of street-based sex workers.
I am not convinced.
This has been a thoughtful and philosophical session.
Much more so than the previous meeting was.
It is useful that it has been so, but I would like to ask about a more factual matter. As you will be aware, following the stage 1 debate on the previous bill during the first session of the Parliament, which might seem a long time ago, the Scottish Executive set up an expert group. Has your organisation been visited by or had any discussions with the expert group?
Yes, we have facilitated members of that group to come out on our night-time service provision, because the first phase of its work involves looking solely at street prostitution. We have given evidence to the group and facilitated its research, which has included one-to-one interviews with women who are working on the streets in Edinburgh. We are also participating in research that Turning Point Scotland is leading on the experiences of street-based sex workers.
In your work in the unofficial tolerance zone, how successful were your efforts to support street prostitutes who wished to leave the sex industry and how do you measure success?
We had funding from Scottish Enterprise for two and half years for our new futures project. As I said, 10 per cent of all the sex workers with whom we had contact chose to access that service and 77 of those sex workers are no longer in contact with SCOT-PEP. However, this is where the choice is between going for hard evidence or for soft indicators. We have no contact with those 77 women within the parts of the sex industry in which we operate, which cover internet advertising, licensed and unlicensed establishments, escort agencies and street prostitution. Our assumption is that the women have moved on from the sex industry in Edinburgh. Therefore, we believe that about 75 per cent of the women who engaged with us are no longer active in the sex industry, which is a high percentage.
Frankly, however, it is possible that those women just did not like SCOT-PEP and our services. They could have moved to another city and still be working in the sex industry. One of the difficulties in working with people who are involved in the sex industry is that they do not want to disclose their involvement because of the stigma and society's perception. Therefore, they are not prepared to provide their names, addresses and phone numbers to allow us to ask them in a year's time whether they are still a prostitute. We need that reality check if we truly want to create opportunities to enable women to explore their options and to achieve their aspirations. We must get away from being fixated on wanting to track them.
One of our problems in gaining continuing funding for our new futures scheme was that we were unable to demonstrate that we had been successful. However, as Ruth Morgan Thomas said, the nature of the business means that anonymity was paramount for most of the women who accessed the services. We were unable to monitor where everybody had gone and to demonstrate, for example, that so-and-so was working for Safeway. That was frustrating and difficult.
You lay great store on trust and on the relationships that are built up and you are calling for more targeted support services, but such services are, in many ways, institutionalised. What can you do that more formal services cannot do?
SCOT-PEP was set up by sex workers for sex workers, so a component of community development is involved. Our funding bids are based on the needs that the women identify as priorities. I believe that SCOT-PEP is unique in that respect.
I also believe that, as a voluntary organisation, we can respond rapidly to a rapidly changing environment. There have been a significant number of changes in the Edinburgh street prostitution scene and in the provision of services for sex workers, including the eviction of SCOT-PEP in 1996 by the City of Edinburgh Council from our drop-in premises in the Shore, for bringing prostitution to Leith. We had only two weeks' notice of that eviction, but there was not one night's break in service provision in those two weeks. Within that time, we purchased our first mobile unit and had it out there on the night that the service was due to be provided. Our ability to respond rapidly to situations has enabled us to maintain a much higher level of support to the women.
The other way in which SCOT-PEP differs from some of the statutory providers is that voluntary sector sex work projects tend to carry out street outreach. We do not rely on sitting in a drop-in centre and having sex workers come to find us; we go out to establish contact and make early interventions. If we can get in early enough, we will reduce the risks that sex workers face and potentially enable them to move on from the sex industry before they become entrenched and entrapped. There are many things that voluntary organisations such as ours can do; I believe that statutory sector organisations can be far more restricted and slow moving in making changes when required.
An important factor for me is the extent to which SCOT-PEP is peer-support led. Many of our volunteers, staff members and board members are either current or former sex workers. There is an immediate element of trust in us, which might not be the case with a statutory organisation. As Ruth Morgan Thomas says, sex workers will respond to us much more readily.
So SCOT-PEP's mode of operation is distinct and unique. The issue is about getting help to where it is needed and in a form that will work. Are there any barriers to accessing the services that have been called for? Are there any barriers to making that contact and getting help to where it is needed?
There certainly are barriers preventing us from providing the quality and level of services that women require. The loss of the zone has had a major impact. I sit here shaking my head in disbelief at the fact that all that is being provided is an Elastoplast service, which is not good enough.
There are barriers in addition to those caused by the dispersal of the women. When we meet a woman in crisis at night when she is out on the street—this came from members of the expert group that came out with the team one night—it is almost impossible to link her with another agency that can help in resolving the issues that she faces. SCOT-PEP does not see itself as the total solution; it is a gateway and we will signpost people to the appropriate specialist services.
As I said, when we meet somebody who is in crisis at 11.30 at night, few other agencies are out there. There are significant problems with the criteria that other agencies apply. A significant number of projects that deal with homelessness among young people have criteria that allow for no injecting drug use, no drug dependency, no mental health issues and no alcohol problems. The reality for the young people and many of the women with whom we work is that those factors are the issue, which can mean that they are prohibited from accessing support services. There are a significant number of barriers preventing sex workers from accessing generic services—that applies throughout the UK, not only in Edinburgh.
There is also the old chestnut of money. We are severely under-resourced in comparison with many other sex work projects in Scotland, although I do not want to stir up the Edinburgh-Glasgow debate again. Like all voluntary groups, we feel that we are underfunded.
The total funding for our new futures project was £166,000 for two and a half years.
You have been amazingly modest about the achievements of SCOT-PEP. As you say, soft indicators are often all that can be produced, but you have produced more soft indicators than another group that we could mention.
I would like you to comment on the report "A Critical Examination of Responses to Prostitution in Four Countries", which I have seen quoted. Personally, I find it bizarre that a group should spend public money on having a report done on what happens in four other countries when all that we are thinking about is Aberdeen and Edinburgh, where there is a track record that could be examined to allow benchmarks to be teased out.
The report did not surprise me—its authors are renowned for their abolitionist stance on prostitution and their opinions and beliefs come through in the report. As someone who has carried out epidemiological research in Edinburgh on HIV-related risks in prostitution, I question the research that the authors cite in their bibliography. They cite opinion and soft indicators as hard evidence. In some cases, the factuality of their statements is open to question. In my experience, the Dutch toleration zones and the Utrecht model in particular have been successful in reducing violence and have been accepted within the community. I could write a similar report that came up with the opposite conclusion, such is the divide between the different ideological perspectives on prostitution. I do not see the report as an objective piece of writing.
To be honest, I am more impressed by the fact that the bill has been welcomed by Mark Turley, the City of Edinburgh Council's director of housing, who will probably have to deal with prostitution issues in general because of the current hiatus in the council's social work services. Lothian and Borders police have also welcomed the bill. However, since the publication of the four countries report, I have heard criticisms based on the fact that Amsterdam has discontinued its street tolerance zone. What is the difference between the experience in Scotland and that in Amsterdam that has made the local council here favour a tolerance zone whereas the local council there opposed the zone that it had?
There is a phenomenal difference between European countries and the UK or Scotland. The Amsterdam toleration zone was closed as a result of a number of swoops that the police organised to deal with the illegal migrants who worked there. The legalisation of the brothels and the indoor sex industry in the Netherlands had forced migrant sex workers out of those establishments and into the street prostitution zones. The issue is difficult because the Amsterdam zone failed not because it did not reduce nuisance and problems such as debris, graffiti or vandalism, but because of European policy on immigration and migrant workers. The Amsterdam scheme had achieved the aim of a toleration zone, which is to protect one of the most vulnerable groups in society.
The closure ties in with the recent Dutch decision forcibly to repatriate illegal aliens. I am sure that there is a link between the two.
My final question, which arose at our previous evidence-taking session and was mentioned by Michael McMahon today, is about Sweden. Last time round, the latest word from Sweden was that there had been a reduction in street prostitution in the first year following the criminalisation of the selling of sex. At that time, everyone admitted that they did not know where the prostitutes had gone. To the best of our knowledge—we were informed of this by a local council official—numbers are now back up again. Can you add anything on that?
That is certainly the information that we have from the international networking that we do. In the Swedish model, there was a short-term reduction in prostitution, but many of the women disappeared into an underground industry that is far more vulnerable to the international and internet traffickers that the Swedish Government is trying to combat. It is interesting to hear how Swedish sex worker rights activists perceived what happened. Before the legislation came into force, the women worked independently; since it came into force, the organised crime networks have exerted phenomenal pressure on women who were previously not abused by pimps or traffickers. Sex workers have again been made to pay the price for that moral statement.
My question to you as politicians is whether you are prepared to make sex workers pay the price for your ideological perspective. Nobody else pays the price. In Sweden, the clients are fined, but I am not aware of any reports of clients being sentenced to prison. The sex workers are always the ones who pay the price when politicians tinker with the laws. Often, they pay with their lives.
As there are no further questions, I thank Ruth Morgan Thomas and George Lewis for their evidence.
That brings us to the end of today's meeting. I remind members that our next meeting will be on 20 April and that our next evidence-taking session on the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill will be on 25 May.
Meeting closed at 15:41.